Larry Wall made Java Perl Lingo (JPL, named after Larry's previous employer) around the release of Perl 5. O'Reilly first tried to sell it as a commercial software in the Perl Resource Kit, but eventually made it open source http://www.oreilly.com/pub/pr/... in a "dumpware" sort of mode. It eventually became incompatible with newer Perl and Java releases and I want to say it was abandoned, but that is pretending people used it.
In Kent Walker's post, I can see what Google wants out of the deal: It prevents foreign governments to demanding servers and storage in their country and Google wants to keep them wherever they want to rather than where foreign nations demand them to. That isn't an issue that resonates with me.
He seems to think that I should be willing to abide by new additional copyright restrictions because they are offset by some fair use clarifications. I feel that copyright has encroached too far already and should be rolled back.
Finally he suggests the general public should have more participation next time negotiations like this occur, but doesn't say where they were this time when people wanted participation, or even access to what was being discussed? If they didn't help us participate this time why should the next time be different?
The post seems hollow and self-serving. I'm still convinced that the TPP is a bad idea.
Very few of the rear end collisions that this type of system protects against have fatalities. Even relatively few injuries compared to other accidents. What we are mostly talking about here would be reducing property damage (the car collided into) so insurance claims will go down (to the benefit of the ones collecting the insurance premiums)
This will also be a boon to the companies who own the automatic emergency braking patents, as they get to license them to the other auto manufacturers.
I think there is some implicit context you have in your head that isn't quite coming out in your written content, and then you are blaming people who don't aren't getting you. If you are talking about the "transform" "transfrom" typo, that isn't an issue with all scripting languages. It depends on the language's syntax, etc. If that is the error you, then Perl with "use strict" will catch it. Many other implicitly typed languages require you to declare variables even if you don't declare their types.
If the "transform", "transfrom" typo wasn't the issue you were describing common to all scripting languages, then maybe now is the describe the universal flaw of scripting languages with words rather than a partial example.
You don't need to activate the product over the internet. You can activate over the phone. I haven't looked into it closely, but I'd check if the code the machine generates includes the MAC address. Or if it still includes it if you disable the network driver. Or which MAC address it will use if you add another network adaptor (PCI or USB) which you can throw away as soon as you are done.
I don't think Applescript and Automator bridge the gap between non-programmer and programmer as slowly and as fluidly as Hypercard did. A non-programmer could start using Hypercard as a simple flat file database without programming. The sample Addressbook etc. Hypercard stacks were perfectly usable and there was a large quantity of freeware and shareware stacks that (inherently) came with complete source code. If someone had just a small wish for how it behaved differently ("I wish the addressbook had a nickname field:) many could be added through the GUI tools without programming. At some point, they may wish for behavior that involved changes in code, if they reached that point, the code had a fairly strong mapping to the concepts they had learned so far (stacks, cards, backgrounds, fields, etc) that they may be able to suss out what the code was doing and figure out simple changes. Once doing a fair amount of modification of the existing code, some may choose to strike out on their own and create something new.
Applescript and Automator seem to be more about simple automation of tasks. Which is a great power to give someone. ("Ugh, I hate doing this same drudgework every day|week|whenever_the_situation_bothers_me") but seems to me still a larger jump from non-programmer to programmer.
It did have network features, if by network you consider Appletalk. The code 'go to stack addressbok on machine "Andrew's Powerbook"' was valid Hypertalk.
Saying "PDP" instruction set makes them sound all the same. C is very similar to the PDP-11 instruction set, Unfortunately, it was produced after C was developed. I strain to find similarities between the PDP-7 instruction set and C. Most of the PDP-11-isms that people see in C are the post-(increment|decrement) instruction variations and the MOV variations that dereference an address register.
This is why back in the day AT&T and IBM (still today) have publications like The Bell System Technical Journal, IBM Systems Journal, etc. It gives them platforms to publish the inventions that they don't wish to patent, but still show prior art.
Did you read anything the the Byte editors wrote about the end of the magazine? Tom Halfhill's Tom's Unofficial BYTE FAQ:
The Death of BYTE Magazine ? The advertising was drying up well before CMP purchased McGraw-Hill technology publications (including Byte.) By that time, enough magazines with a strong focused interest existed that it was tough for a generalist like Byte to sell advertising. If Microsoft wanted to advertise NT4, they could reach more of their potential customers by advertising in Information Week, rather than Byte. If NuMega wanted to sell a memory leak tester to developers, they could reach more of their audience in Dr. Dobbs Journal. Texas Instruments DSP group could reach more hardware designers by advertising in Microprocessor Report.
Byte was a great magazine for someone like me who was interested in how popular technology was currently used today, what advantages and disadvantages alternate technologies had, and what was coming up in the future. Articles from chip design to heterogeneous user management. I wasn't a good target for many of the advertisers though. (I wasn't interested in the Microsoft NT ads, because I wasn't trying to set up an windows network. I wasn't interested in the NuMega ads, because I wasn't developing for Intel hardware. I wasn't interested in the TI DSP articles, because I wasn't doing hardware design, etc.) and those advertiser didn't want to pay for me to see their ads. The end result is a high subscriber base for a tech magazine with lower per subscriber ad revenue. Not a good business model.
The deal did have Microsoft buying $150 Million of non-voting stock, for Microsoft promising to develop Microsoft Office for at least another five years and Apple bundling IE with MacOS, but that wasn't what the deal was really about. It was really about Apple promising to drop their copyright infringement lawsuit about code from Quicktime being put into Video for Windows. Apple contracted out to a company called the The San Francisco Canyon Company to port Quicktime to Windows. Then after they ported Quicktime they developed the Display Code Interface for VfW in seven weeks for Intel, and Intel then gave the code to Microsoft.
A single language makes each developer easily replacable. You quit, they just hire another Java programmer. If the collection of software you develop with is sufficiently unique (XSLT with extention functions written in both Groovy and Jython on IKVM running under.Net) you can create a position that would be nearly impossible to fill.
On the other hand, having each developer work on projects with their own collection of technologies tends cause the maintainance tasks of those projects go back to the original developer. This is generally a bad thing. Having a developer know that no one will ever see their code gives a temptation to take shortcuts that they wouldn't take others. Even more than code reviews, splitting maintanance across developers encourages quality code. You don't want a co-worker cursing your name as they try to add one minor feature to something you've done. ("F'n Andrew! Why'd he do that!").
Different languages and other technologies have their strengths and weaknesses. If they are chosen based on their strengths and not just their familiarity (let alone out and out prejudice) then their should be productivity gains achived from the choices. Of course, that means that this would increase the ramp up time a new developer needs to be very productive.
So if you have high turnover, you want to get new developers productively quickly (which would imply standardizing on as few languages and technologies as possible) and you want to get projects seen by as many developers as possible before the original developer leaves. (If Andrew is long gone, then "F'n Andrew!" can be an excuse given by the maintainance programmer, even if it is groundless.) If you have a lower turnover, then developers start getting a better feel over which technology choices fit in which business scenarios.
If this standardization is being driven by upper management, they are hoping to turn the developer positions into a cookie cutter role.
Page caching can only do so much. If you have a complex page that takes 30 seconds to retrieve a complex page from the origin server, and you are getting 9,000 requests a minute, it is very likely that the caches will overwhelm your tier of origin servers before any of them can have a cached copy to return to the client.
I don't even know if you are the same person from all four postings or if I'm being ganged up on by four different people. I, on the other hand have hundreds of postings written over a half-dozen years for people to look up and judge me on.
I have a user name that is only a slight variation on my given name, so you can google all sorts of stuff I've written. In postings to slashdot, I've talked about my work. You can tell who I know personally based on references to out-of-band conversations.
The "Post Anonymously" button is sitting there a couple of inches below the comment's text box, I made a conscious choice not to check it so that people could take my comments based on who they know me to be. (or can learn.)
Re:That's not really Quinn's fault, is it?
on
Peter Quinn Resigns
·
· Score: 1
The disclosures of an Anonymous Coward mean nothing.
Re:The investigation found NO WRONGDOING.
on
Peter Quinn Resigns
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry, but I don't think you comments are quite accurate. You probably just skimmed my post above, and didn't notice where I already addressed your points.
You said Apparently his boss could give verbal authorizationI wrote The later article explained how Quinn's new boss requested that he supply the missing paperwork, that it was turned in and that it was determined that all of the conference were legitimate conferences. For further supporting evidence, let me point to a quote from the governor's director of communication, as quoted in the second Globe article. "Fehrnstrom, however, said that Administration and Finance Secretary Thomas H. Trimarco had directed Quinn to fill out the needed paperwork for the dozen trips he had taken since last December to comply with a 1995 regulation " From this, I take that Quinn was not in compliance with the regulation until he filled in the paperwork, not that Quinn was never in non-complience.
You said Even the Boston Globe printed a retraction I wrote It didn't retract anything expressed in the original article, but filled in the information after the first story The original article did not say that the trips were improper, but just that there was no paperwork and the state was investigating whether they were proper. Since it there was just an implication of wrongdoing and not an explicit statement, the second article stating that no wrongdoing was found was not a retraction. Retractions state where the original article was incorrect, and the second article had no such language. You can take the facts in the second article to mean that the implications in the first article were unfounded, but that still isn't a retraction.
You said some government functionary didn't fill out all their TPS reports I wrote the travel and conference regulations are anti-influence-peddling regulations. Your characterization of the travel authorization form as being similar to the TPS reports joke in Office Space ignores the fact that the travel regulations have a real purpose in government transparency. It also ignores the fact that beyond the Office Space joke a Test Procedure Specification report has an actual purpose and can produce and actual improvement in the product being worked on. (Essentially, if Microsoft QA filled in more TPS reports and the managers actually read and analyzed them, their products wouldn't be the putrid mess that they are.)
You said Nor should the retraction be less prominent than the story itself. I wrote It was on page B1, the front of the City and Regional News section The number of people who would see an article on the front page and below the fold is roughly similar to the number of people who would see the same article on the City and Region news front page.
Yes, the original article was damaging. Today's news confirms it. Yes, it was poor journalism. No one has come to Stephen Kurkjian's defense and explained why he had to rush off a poorly researched article before even talking to Eric Kriss. But when your mischaracterize Kurkjian's article as badly as he mischaracterized Quinn's conference schedule, you are minimizing how damaging the events actually were. (actually your work mischaracterizes them worse, since Kurkjian had the facts right but the innuendo wrong, you don't even have the facts right.) Someone reading the matter and not having a predisposition to one side or the other would see both sides smearing and lying. If you accurately describe Stephen Kurkjian's mistakes, and throw no additional ones into the mix, Kurkjian's errors are all that more apparent.
No, the story was not proven wrong. The original article stated that Quinn went to those conferences without filling out the official Travel Authorization Form and by not doing so he is in violation of the state's Travel Guidelines and state regulations. These regulations are in place so that state employees prove that the conferences they are about to go to are real conferences and not wine and dine junkets. The story was very slanted. It could be described as sensationalistic or yellow journalism. The story itself explains how poorly researched it was (why publish to say that he couldn't get in touch with Quinn's boss Eric Kriss rather than waiting for Thanksgiving weekend to be over and actually talking to Kriss.) but I don't think you could point out any particular incorrect fact.
The later article explained how Quinn's new boss requested that he supply the missing paperwork, that it was turned in and that it was determined that all of the conference were legitimate conferences. It didn't retract anything expressed in the original article, but filled in the information after the first story. (saying that Quinn filed the missing paperwork; Kriss said that he knew about all the conferences and had no problem with them; and all the conferences looked legit to the governor's budget chief.
I wouldn't exactly call it "buried". It was on page B1, the front of the City and Regional News section. (stories that are buried start on page B6 or so. )
Now some people will use the fact that Quinn's boss Eric Kriss says that he knew about and verbally approved all of the conferences as if the Travel Authorization paperwork wasn't necessary in the first place, or that since Quinn paid for some of the expenses out of his own pocket that the state has no reason for having any interest in the matter at all. What I don't understand of these points why people feel that Kriss had any authority to override state regulations. (Would Kriss have the authority to tell Quinn he could double park on Beacon Street if he wanted to). The out-of-pocket costs that Quinn absorbed ignore the fact that the travel and conference regulations are anti-influence-peddling regulations, not cost restrictions. The travel form (a one page form, for goodness sakes, not very burdensome for paperwork) simply asks "how much are you paying", "how much does the state need to pay", and "how much is the conference shelling out for you to be here, and are they involved in any current state contracts".
Some of the biggest influence peddling scandals in the state of Massachusetts have come from companies using phony conferences to whisk state officials to exotic locations. They have a duty to find out which conferences are legit in order to protect itself.
In between his stints as a Chief Scientist at Atari and a Disney Fellow at Walt Disney Imagineering, he was an Apple Fellow. (his bio on O'Reilly.com has more info.)
That is why the Squeak license still mentions Apple
Since people seem to be pointing towards their favoriate redistributable music sources, let me point out just one more CC Mixter
As for Carbon Silicon, I don't know. From what I can see, we have an unsigned band with some recognizable members. Since they are unsigned, they have a great deal of latittude in what they can do with their music, so they are using it to promote themselves further. With enough promotion, they may land themselves a deal, and then they will have much less say in how they distribute their music.
I've long been a fan of Mick Jones though. He was responsible for most of the more experimental music from The Clash, and then through the various incarnations of Big Audio Dynamite.
Why should SCO have any business saying who IBM has working on anything? When using words like "tainted" you seem to be implying that techniques like clean room reverse engineering techniques are legally mandated. They aren't. Techniques like that are because they easiest to disprove deliberate copying if the issue is brought to court. (One party says "Your product and my product are too similar, you must have copied ours." and the other replies "No, it can't be. Our engineers who built our product had no access to your product. They built it from functional specs from our reverse-engineering team") When giving the same people work on both internal and third party products, you have to prove that the didn't, rather than couldn't copy. Not impossible to do, but harder.
If SCO would or could demonstrate where copying has taken place between Unix and Linux, then it would be very reasonable for them to point to organizations like IBM who have access to both Unix and Linux source code as the cause. Without any copying, nothing wrong has occured. It is similar to they way that if someone finds a broken window and finds you with a baseball bat in your hand, you could be the most likely to be the one who caused the window to break. If there is no broken window, why accuse someone of carrying a bat?
The CodeWeavers corporation makes propriatery DLLs that are compatible with propriatery that come with Microsoft Windows but contain no windows code.
The wine groups themselves haven't reimplemented every DLL that comes with any particular copy of windows. Some of the more interesting ones that they have done have the same interface as Microsoft's but a different implementation. For example, GDI32.dll, in Wine it needs to convert GDI calls to Xlib calls, but in Windows they interact with the video driver directly.
For other DLLs there are no system specific functionality, for example comdlg32.dll likely calls GDI32.dll for all the low level drawing commands. For these system independent DLLs, if the wine projects don't have one available, you can grab one out of windows, if you have, um, access access to a copy of windows.
The Crossover Office package contains all of the DLLs needed to run Microsoft Office applications without having to pull any files over from your WINNT directory. There used to be another package called Crossover Plugin that allowed you to run common web browser plugins like Shockwave. Since I don't see it on their site note, I assume all of hte Crossover Plugins stuff got moved over to Crossover Office.
Slashdot Mirror
Larry Wall made Java Perl Lingo (JPL, named after Larry's previous employer) around the release of Perl 5. O'Reilly first tried to sell it as a commercial software in the Perl Resource Kit, but eventually made it open source http://www.oreilly.com/pub/pr/... in a "dumpware" sort of mode. It eventually became incompatible with newer Perl and Java releases and I want to say it was abandoned, but that is pretending people used it.
In Kent Walker's post, I can see what Google wants out of the deal: It prevents foreign governments to demanding servers and storage in their country and Google wants to keep them wherever they want to rather than where foreign nations demand them to. That isn't an issue that resonates with me.
He seems to think that I should be willing to abide by new additional copyright restrictions because they are offset by some fair use clarifications. I feel that copyright has encroached too far already and should be rolled back.
Finally he suggests the general public should have more participation next time negotiations like this occur, but doesn't say where they were this time when people wanted participation, or even access to what was being discussed? If they didn't help us participate this time why should the next time be different?
The post seems hollow and self-serving. I'm still convinced that the TPP is a bad idea.
Very few of the rear end collisions that this type of system protects against have fatalities. Even relatively few injuries compared to other accidents. What we are mostly talking about here would be reducing property damage (the car collided into) so insurance claims will go down (to the benefit of the ones collecting the insurance premiums) This will also be a boon to the companies who own the automatic emergency braking patents, as they get to license them to the other auto manufacturers.
I think there is some implicit context you have in your head that isn't quite coming out in your written content, and then you are blaming people who don't aren't getting you. If you are talking about the "transform" "transfrom" typo, that isn't an issue with all scripting languages. It depends on the language's syntax, etc. If that is the error you, then Perl with "use strict" will catch it. Many other implicitly typed languages require you to declare variables even if you don't declare their types. If the "transform", "transfrom" typo wasn't the issue you were describing common to all scripting languages, then maybe now is the describe the universal flaw of scripting languages with words rather than a partial example.
You don't need to activate the product over the internet. You can activate over the phone. I haven't looked into it closely, but I'd check if the code the machine generates includes the MAC address. Or if it still includes it if you disable the network driver. Or which MAC address it will use if you add another network adaptor (PCI or USB) which you can throw away as soon as you are done.
Oh, sorry. Was I not supposed to do that?
I don't think Applescript and Automator bridge the gap between non-programmer and programmer as slowly and as fluidly as Hypercard did. A non-programmer could start using Hypercard as a simple flat file database without programming. The sample Addressbook etc. Hypercard stacks were perfectly usable and there was a large quantity of freeware and shareware stacks that (inherently) came with complete source code. If someone had just a small wish for how it behaved differently ("I wish the addressbook had a nickname field:) many could be added through the GUI tools without programming. At some point, they may wish for behavior that involved changes in code, if they reached that point, the code had a fairly strong mapping to the concepts they had learned so far (stacks, cards, backgrounds, fields, etc) that they may be able to suss out what the code was doing and figure out simple changes. Once doing a fair amount of modification of the existing code, some may choose to strike out on their own and create something new.
Applescript and Automator seem to be more about simple automation of tasks. Which is a great power to give someone. ("Ugh, I hate doing this same drudgework every day|week|whenever_the_situation_bothers_me") but seems to me still a larger jump from non-programmer to programmer.
It did have network features, if by network you consider Appletalk. The code 'go to stack addressbok on machine "Andrew's Powerbook"' was valid Hypertalk.
Saying "PDP" instruction set makes them sound all the same. C is very similar to the PDP-11 instruction set, Unfortunately, it was produced after C was developed. I strain to find similarities between the PDP-7 instruction set and C. Most of the PDP-11-isms that people see in C are the post-(increment|decrement) instruction variations and the MOV variations that dereference an address register.
I assumed that the Russians wrote Tsar in their Cyrillic alphabet and both Czar and Tsar are transliterations.
This is why back in the day AT&T and IBM (still today) have publications like The Bell System Technical Journal, IBM Systems Journal, etc. It gives them platforms to publish the inventions that they don't wish to patent, but still show prior art.
Isn't it obvious? All of Lehman Brothers assets got sucked up in a black hole created by the LHC!
Did you read anything the the Byte editors wrote about the end of the magazine? Tom Halfhill's Tom's Unofficial BYTE FAQ: The Death of BYTE Magazine ? The advertising was drying up well before CMP purchased McGraw-Hill technology publications (including Byte.) By that time, enough magazines with a strong focused interest existed that it was tough for a generalist like Byte to sell advertising. If Microsoft wanted to advertise NT4, they could reach more of their potential customers by advertising in Information Week, rather than Byte. If NuMega wanted to sell a memory leak tester to developers, they could reach more of their audience in Dr. Dobbs Journal. Texas Instruments DSP group could reach more hardware designers by advertising in Microprocessor Report.
Byte was a great magazine for someone like me who was interested in how popular technology was currently used today, what advantages and disadvantages alternate technologies had, and what was coming up in the future. Articles from chip design to heterogeneous user management. I wasn't a good target for many of the advertisers though. (I wasn't interested in the Microsoft NT ads, because I wasn't trying to set up an windows network. I wasn't interested in the NuMega ads, because I wasn't developing for Intel hardware. I wasn't interested in the TI DSP articles, because I wasn't doing hardware design, etc.) and those advertiser didn't want to pay for me to see their ads. The end result is a high subscriber base for a tech magazine with lower per subscriber ad revenue. Not a good business model.
The deal did have Microsoft buying $150 Million of non-voting stock, for Microsoft promising to develop Microsoft Office for at least another five years and Apple bundling IE with MacOS, but that wasn't what the deal was really about. It was really about Apple promising to drop their copyright infringement lawsuit about code from Quicktime being put into Video for Windows. Apple contracted out to a company called the The San Francisco Canyon Company to port Quicktime to Windows. Then after they ported Quicktime they developed the Display Code Interface for VfW in seven weeks for Intel, and Intel then gave the code to Microsoft.
A single language makes each developer easily replacable. You quit, they just hire another Java programmer. If the collection of software you develop with is sufficiently unique (XSLT with extention functions written in both Groovy and Jython on IKVM running under .Net) you can create a position that would be nearly impossible to fill.
On the other hand, having each developer work on projects with their own collection of technologies tends cause the maintainance tasks of those projects go back to the original developer. This is generally a bad thing. Having a developer know that no one will ever see their code gives a temptation to take shortcuts that they wouldn't take others. Even more than code reviews, splitting maintanance across developers encourages quality code. You don't want a co-worker cursing your name as they try to add one minor feature to something you've done. ("F'n Andrew! Why'd he do that!").
Different languages and other technologies have their strengths and weaknesses. If they are chosen based on their strengths and not just their familiarity (let alone out and out prejudice) then their should be productivity gains achived from the choices. Of course, that means that this would increase the ramp up time a new developer needs to be very productive.
So if you have high turnover, you want to get new developers productively quickly (which would imply standardizing on as few languages and technologies as possible) and you want to get projects seen by as many developers as possible before the original developer leaves. (If Andrew is long gone, then "F'n Andrew!" can be an excuse given by the maintainance programmer, even if it is groundless.) If you have a lower turnover, then developers start getting a better feel over which technology choices fit in which business scenarios.
If this standardization is being driven by upper management, they are hoping to turn the developer positions into a cookie cutter role.
Page caching can only do so much. If you have a complex page that takes 30 seconds to retrieve a complex page from the origin server, and you are getting 9,000 requests a minute, it is very likely that the caches will overwhelm your tier of origin servers before any of them can have a cached copy to return to the client.
I don't even know if you are the same person from all four postings or if I'm being ganged up on by four different people. I, on the other hand have hundreds of postings written over a half-dozen years for people to look up and judge me on.
I have a user name that is only a slight variation on my given name, so you can google all sorts of stuff I've written. In postings to slashdot, I've talked about my work. You can tell who I know personally based on references to out-of-band conversations.
The "Post Anonymously" button is sitting there a couple of inches below the comment's text box, I made a conscious choice not to check it so that people could take my comments based on who they know me to be. (or can learn.)
The disclosures of an Anonymous Coward mean nothing.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you comments are quite accurate. You probably just skimmed my post above, and didn't notice where I already addressed your points.
You said Apparently his boss could give verbal authorizationI wrote The later article explained how Quinn's new boss requested that he supply the missing paperwork, that it was turned in and that it was determined that all of the conference were legitimate conferences. For further supporting evidence, let me point to a quote from the governor's director of communication, as quoted in the second Globe article. "Fehrnstrom, however, said that Administration and Finance Secretary Thomas H. Trimarco had directed Quinn to fill out the needed paperwork for the dozen trips he had taken since last December to comply with a 1995 regulation " From this, I take that Quinn was not in compliance with the regulation until he filled in the paperwork, not that Quinn was never in non-complience.You said Even the Boston Globe printed a retraction I wrote It didn't retract anything expressed in the original article, but filled in the information after the first story The original article did not say that the trips were improper, but just that there was no paperwork and the state was investigating whether they were proper. Since it there was just an implication of wrongdoing and not an explicit statement, the second article stating that no wrongdoing was found was not a retraction. Retractions state where the original article was incorrect, and the second article had no such language. You can take the facts in the second article to mean that the implications in the first article were unfounded, but that still isn't a retraction.
You said some government functionary didn't fill out all their TPS reports I wrote the travel and conference regulations are anti-influence-peddling regulations. Your characterization of the travel authorization form as being similar to the TPS reports joke in Office Space ignores the fact that the travel regulations have a real purpose in government transparency. It also ignores the fact that beyond the Office Space joke a Test Procedure Specification report has an actual purpose and can produce and actual improvement in the product being worked on. (Essentially, if Microsoft QA filled in more TPS reports and the managers actually read and analyzed them, their products wouldn't be the putrid mess that they are.)
You said Nor should the retraction be less prominent than the story itself. I wrote It was on page B1, the front of the City and Regional News section The number of people who would see an article on the front page and below the fold is roughly similar to the number of people who would see the same article on the City and Region news front page.
Yes, the original article was damaging. Today's news confirms it. Yes, it was poor journalism. No one has come to Stephen Kurkjian's defense and explained why he had to rush off a poorly researched article before even talking to Eric Kriss. But when your mischaracterize Kurkjian's article as badly as he mischaracterized Quinn's conference schedule, you are minimizing how damaging the events actually were. (actually your work mischaracterizes them worse, since Kurkjian had the facts right but the innuendo wrong, you don't even have the facts right.) Someone reading the matter and not having a predisposition to one side or the other would see both sides smearing and lying. If you accurately describe Stephen Kurkjian's mistakes, and throw no additional ones into the mix, Kurkjian's errors are all that more apparent.
No, the story was not proven wrong. The original article stated that Quinn went to those conferences without filling out the official Travel Authorization Form and by not doing so he is in violation of the state's Travel Guidelines and state regulations. These regulations are in place so that state employees prove that the conferences they are about to go to are real conferences and not wine and dine junkets. The story was very slanted. It could be described as sensationalistic or yellow journalism. The story itself explains how poorly researched it was (why publish to say that he couldn't get in touch with Quinn's boss Eric Kriss rather than waiting for Thanksgiving weekend to be over and actually talking to Kriss.) but I don't think you could point out any particular incorrect fact.
The later article explained how Quinn's new boss requested that he supply the missing paperwork, that it was turned in and that it was determined that all of the conference were legitimate conferences. It didn't retract anything expressed in the original article, but filled in the information after the first story. (saying that Quinn filed the missing paperwork; Kriss said that he knew about all the conferences and had no problem with them; and all the conferences looked legit to the governor's budget chief.
I wouldn't exactly call it "buried". It was on page B1, the front of the City and Regional News section. (stories that are buried start on page B6 or so. )
Now some people will use the fact that Quinn's boss Eric Kriss says that he knew about and verbally approved all of the conferences as if the Travel Authorization paperwork wasn't necessary in the first place, or that since Quinn paid for some of the expenses out of his own pocket that the state has no reason for having any interest in the matter at all. What I don't understand of these points why people feel that Kriss had any authority to override state regulations. (Would Kriss have the authority to tell Quinn he could double park on Beacon Street if he wanted to). The out-of-pocket costs that Quinn absorbed ignore the fact that the travel and conference regulations are anti-influence-peddling regulations, not cost restrictions. The travel form (a one page form, for goodness sakes, not very burdensome for paperwork) simply asks "how much are you paying", "how much does the state need to pay", and "how much is the conference shelling out for you to be here, and are they involved in any current state contracts".
Some of the biggest influence peddling scandals in the state of Massachusetts have come from companies using phony conferences to whisk state officials to exotic locations. They have a duty to find out which conferences are legit in order to protect itself.
That is why the Squeak license still mentions Apple
Since people seem to be pointing towards their favoriate redistributable music sources, let me point out just one more CC Mixter
As for Carbon Silicon, I don't know. From what I can see, we have an unsigned band with some recognizable members. Since they are unsigned, they have a great deal of latittude in what they can do with their music, so they are using it to promote themselves further. With enough promotion, they may land themselves a deal, and then they will have much less say in how they distribute their music.
I've long been a fan of Mick Jones though. He was responsible for most of the more experimental music from The Clash, and then through the various incarnations of Big Audio Dynamite.
Why should SCO have any business saying who IBM has working on anything? When using words like "tainted" you seem to be implying that techniques like clean room reverse engineering techniques are legally mandated. They aren't. Techniques like that are because they easiest to disprove deliberate copying if the issue is brought to court. (One party says "Your product and my product are too similar, you must have copied ours." and the other replies "No, it can't be. Our engineers who built our product had no access to your product. They built it from functional specs from our reverse-engineering team") When giving the same people work on both internal and third party products, you have to prove that the didn't, rather than couldn't copy. Not impossible to do, but harder.
If SCO would or could demonstrate where copying has taken place between Unix and Linux, then it would be very reasonable for them to point to organizations like IBM who have access to both Unix and Linux source code as the cause. Without any copying, nothing wrong has occured. It is similar to they way that if someone finds a broken window and finds you with a baseball bat in your hand, you could be the most likely to be the one who caused the window to break. If there is no broken window, why accuse someone of carrying a bat?
The CodeWeavers corporation makes propriatery DLLs that are compatible with propriatery that come with Microsoft Windows but contain no windows code.
The wine groups themselves haven't reimplemented every DLL that comes with any particular copy of windows. Some of the more interesting ones that they have done have the same interface as Microsoft's but a different implementation. For example, GDI32.dll, in Wine it needs to convert GDI calls to Xlib calls, but in Windows they interact with the video driver directly.
For other DLLs there are no system specific functionality, for example comdlg32.dll likely calls GDI32.dll for all the low level drawing commands. For these system independent DLLs, if the wine projects don't have one available, you can grab one out of windows, if you have, um, access access to a copy of windows.
The Crossover Office package contains all of the DLLs needed to run Microsoft Office applications without having to pull any files over from your WINNT directory. There used to be another package called Crossover Plugin that allowed you to run common web browser plugins like Shockwave. Since I don't see it on their site note, I assume all of hte Crossover Plugins stuff got moved over to Crossover Office.
I think the article you are talking about his this one from the International Herald Tribune, White House Letter: 'Boomer rock' keeps Bush's heart in tune